The Shotgun Blog
« Little Red Corporation Meets The Big Bad Fox | Main | The win that turns into a loss? Part II »
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
The win that turns into a loss?
There has been quite a bit of talk over the last couple of days (weeks) on whether the SSM legislation could quickly turn from a Liberal victory to a defeat as the Liberal stance alienates the “ethnic” vote (I will use the politically incorrect short-hand to make this easier) since they tend to support the traditional definition of marriage. One of the reasons that I am conservative is that I can’t help but question conventional wisdom so my immediate question was “is there validity to this or is this wishful thinking by Conservatives?” A quick (and totally non-scientific) study provides the answer.
I found the semi-colon delimited data and started with Ontario (I am from there and I had to start somewhere). I looked at the percentage vote by the winner and determined that if the candidate had greater than 49% of the vote their seat was safe (I told you it was un-scientific) and pulled them aside. These “safe” seats told a story right away.
Riding |
Candidate |
% of vote |
% margin |
Ajax--Pickering |
Mark Holland |
49.77% |
16.14% |
Bramalea--Gore--Malton |
Gurbax S. Malhi |
49.54% |
18.95% |
Davenport |
Mario Silva |
50.69% |
16.56% |
Don Valley East |
Yasmin Ratansi |
54.62% |
26.63% |
Don Valley West |
John Godfrey |
59.79% |
31.48% |
Eglinton--Lawrence |
Joseph Volpe |
60.24% |
35.19% |
Etobicoke Centre |
Borys Wrzesnewskyj |
58.28% |
29.89% |
Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
Jean Augustine |
50.24% |
19.67% |
Etobicoke North |
Roy Cullen |
63.32% |
44.64% |
Huron--Bruce |
Paul Steckle |
49.79% |
18.73% |
Kingston and the Islands |
Peter Milliken |
52.45% |
29.33% |
Markham--Unionville |
John McCallum |
66.31% |
43.82% |
Mississauga--Brampton South |
Navdeep Bains |
57.16% |
33.07% |
Mississauga East--Cooksville |
Albina Guarnieri |
56.70% |
30.67% |
Mississauga--Erindale |
Carolyn Parrish |
54.37% |
22.42% |
Mississauga South |
Paul John Mark Szabo |
51.67% |
18.04% |
Mississauga--Streetsville |
Wajid Khan |
50.56% |
18.83% |
Oak Ridges--Markham |
Lui Temelkovski |
51.73% |
18.21% |
Oakville |
M.A. Bonnie Brown |
52.01% |
16.66% |
Ottawa--Vanier |
Mauril Bélanger |
49.17% |
24.98% |
Pickering--Scarborough East |
Dan McTeague |
56.98% |
28.99% |
Richmond Hill |
Bryon Wilfert |
58.48% |
33.60% |
St. Paul's |
Carolyn Bennett |
58.39% |
38.02% |
Scarborough--Agincourt |
Jim Karygiannis |
64.08% |
43.09% |
Scarborough Centre |
John Cannis |
56.65% |
33.39% |
Scarborough--Guildwood |
John McKay |
57.53% |
34.80% |
Scarborough--Rouge River |
Derek Lee |
57.92% |
40.05% |
Scarborough Southwest |
Tom Wappel |
49.46% |
25.68% |
Thornhill |
Susan Kadis |
54.58% |
20.12% |
Toronto Centre |
Bill Graham |
56.53% |
32.78% |
Vaughan |
Maurizio Bevilacqua |
62.96% |
39.28% |
Willowdale |
Jim Peterson |
61.39% |
38.28% |
York Centre |
Ken Dryden |
54.79% |
28.52% |
York South--Weston |
Alan Tonks |
59.83% |
38.62% |
York West |
Judy Sgro |
64.74% |
49.45% |
Ajax, Etobicoke, Mississauga, Scarborough…these areas have high concentrations of recent immigrants to Canada and are exactly the people who are said to believe in the traditional definition of marriage. But look at those margins of victory, 20%, 30%, 44%!
These margins are so high I decided to not dig into demographic numbers any further. Sorry folks, but in the urban Ontario ridings it will take a lot more than SSM to win the day.
However that does not mean there are not a few seats that could switch. Jerry Pickard (Liberal) won Chantam-Kent-Essex by 407 votes over Dave Van Kesteren (Conservative). Rose-Marie Ur (Liberal) won Middlesex-Kent-Lambton by 164 votes over Bev Shipley (Conservative). Paul Macklin (Liberal) won Northumberland-Quinte West by 313 votes over Doug Galt (Conservative) and Marlene Catterall (Liberal) won Ottawa West-Nepean by 1380 votes over Sean Casey (Conservative).
Furthermore, if the Liberals don’t walk the middle correctly on this issue they could bleed votes to the NDP on the issue, since they are honest on their position. Hamilton East-Stoney Creek and Hamilton Mountain could both flip to the NDP (although it is unclear how much of Sheila Copps effect comes into play in Hamilton) and Olivia Chow lost by only 805 votes in Trinity-Spadina.
But, as I said, I don’t think this issue will be the difference maker…add it to the list however.
Cross-posted to PoliticalStaples
Posted by Greg Staples on January 19, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83439815353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The win that turns into a loss?:
Comments
The conservatives would be better off trying to get rural liberal members to switch to the conservative party. Most rural liberal members are against the gun registry and opposed to same sex marriage. When the vote comes down look at the list of liberal dissenters and I'm sure that list will be full of only rural Ontario liberals like Rose-Marie Ur.
Posted by: mark | 2005-01-19 8:22:54 AM
The same holds true, but to a lesser extent in urban BC. But every little bit helps.
Harper is wisely trying to stay away now from the notwithstanding clause because minority groups--who may be opposed to same-sex marriage--see it is as a threat to their equality rights.
Martin has been trying to lure him onto that ground for some time.
Cardinal Ambrozic walked right into the trap in today's Globe, one day after Bishop Henry's objectionable rant hit the front page.
As has often been observed, in politics it's your friends who will kill you.
All we need now is for Cheryl Gallant to spout off, and we'll have a trifecta. Hopefully, she and Randy White are well hidden from the press.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 8:38:07 AM
I will go out on a limb, and predict the scales tip towards the Conservatives in Atlantic Canada when the election is called. Certainly gains to be had in Nfld & Lbdr, but even in the Maritimes people will be feeling it's "time for a change", which is all the motivation many people need around here. They start to feel sorry for the poor schucks after they're defeated 15 years running! Of course, I'm not speculating how SSM might affect the Eastern vote, just sayin'.
Posted by: Homer Bombeck | 2005-01-19 8:45:47 AM
Hamilton Mountain.
I doubt that it would switch now. The Conservatives ran one of their best candidates ever in that riding last time. Tom Jackson bleed many votes from Beth Phinney in the Eastern part of the riding. Tom Jackson will not be running again and the Conservatives will be unable to find someone with his profile. Chris Carlton for the NDP will run again and lose again. I do not know the amount of times she has ran as the "Stratgic Choice" but she has lost everytime.
Hamilton East
This could easily go NDP. The NDP needs to find a candidate that is a "Sheila Copps' Liberal" and run that individual. After looking at the results, the NDP was unable to win the southern part of Ward 5 in the riding. Ward 5 is the part of the old city of Hamilton that borders Stoney Creek. It is a mix of demographics as well. The problem there was simple, the people in that area do not trust a "union boss" and hence voted for Valeri. Valeri is not popular in that area at all. Hence the NDP can easily capture the riding. There is still plenty of anger at Valeri/Martin for stealing the nomination in the riding.
Posted by: Joey Coleman | 2005-01-19 9:35:29 AM
If the Conservatives come out swinging against same sex marriage, it will cost them my vote. I will not tolerate that sort of bigotry from a party I support (and that I voted for last election).
I may wind up voting (shudder) Green.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 10:39:17 AM
Hey, Sean
With your reasoning skills, you should be considering voting for the Marijuana Party.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 10:43:06 AM
"With your reasoning skills, you should be considering voting for the Marijuana Party."
No thanks. Smoking weed gives me the munchies and I'm trying to lose weight.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 10:57:56 AM
If Harper is wise, he'll present himself to voters as the embodiment of middle class values--family, hard work, rewarding effort, savings,small government, etc.
He'll roll up same-sex marriage into that package, and affirm the importance of traditional marriage and the family. He should refuse to play on the Liberal turf of defining it as an issue of human rights.
Ethnic support is important, but elections are won and lost in the broad middle class.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 11:05:31 AM
Just a hunch, but if there's an election in the next year, I think you can reduce the Liberal support overall by a few percentage points due to sheer voter fatigue/ambilivalence.
Is support of SSM likely to become a strong motivator for lukewarm Liberal- voters? I don't think so - and Paul Martin is proving to have all the charisma of warm porridge.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 11:23:08 AM
There's no way in hell I'll vote Liberal, but I won't vote for a socon agenda, either. If I see that creeping into the Conservative platform, they lose my vote.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 11:43:38 AM
Norm, you've really got it out for poor Cheryl.
You needn't worry, though. By now she's incarcerated at Camp Petawawa. And yes, that sock is still stuffed in her mouth!
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-01-19 12:38:37 PM
I agree with Norm: "As has often been observed, in politics it's your friends who will kill you."
Both Sean and Norm are examples of how this works. Norm obsesses about Cheryl Gallant, to the glee of the left, and Sean's support for conservatism evaporates on the threat of socon opposition to SSM.
Posted by: JR | 2005-01-19 1:03:51 PM
"Sean's support for conservatism evaporates on the threat of socon opposition to SSM"
The Conservatives have been working so hard to present themselves as "Liberal Lite" that I might as well vote Liberal and get the real thing.
If they want to stand apart from the Liberals, how about doing so in areas like fighting corruption, fiscal restraint, and national defense rather than grabbing onto the coattails of a losing issue like SSM.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 1:19:01 PM
Cheryl Gallant is the glee of the Left. Bishop Henry too. Then there's that Buckingham who wants a constitutional amendment on same sex marriage. There's as much chance of that as a man having a baby. Less, probably. No wonder that guy McClelland (sp?) comes on this site with such regularity. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for him.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 1:38:30 PM
"If the Conservatives come out swinging against same sex marriage, it will cost them my vote. I will not tolerate that sort of bigotry from a party I support."
To not support gay marriage is bigotry?? I would expect that comment from a Liberal but not from someone who considers himself conservative.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-19 1:38:51 PM
"To not support gay marriage is bigotry??"
To deny homosexual couples the same legal convenants enjoyed by heterosexual couples? It is in my book. I also have no problem with polygamy. So long as the arrangements are made between consenting ADULTS, they can do whatever the heck they want to.
"I would expect that comment from a Liberal but not from someone who considers himself conservative"
I'm not conservative. I voted conservative in the last election because they were the only party that came anywhere close to the ideals I'm after in a federal party. Then they went and rubbished most of that by cozying up to the Liberals in the health care and spending departments.
If I was to start my own party, it would be called the 'Keep Your Religion Out of My Face and Your Hand Out of My Pocket Party of Canada'.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 2:30:37 PM
"Cheryl Gallant is the glee of the Left." True but it doesn't help to have conservatives obsessively reinforcing their glee.
Sean. I too wish Conservatives were less 'progressive' but then conservatives merging with PC's tends to have that effect. But it seems to me that Conservatives have been fighting corruption, advocating fiscal constraint and beefing up defense as well as taking a reasonable position on SSM.
Posted by: JR | 2005-01-19 2:37:51 PM
Since there is no such party, you'll have to decide whether to vote for one of the "take as much as you need from my pocket and be a nanny to watch over me" parties or not. I have yet to understand how the Liberals and NDP can retain so many one-issue voters but the philosophical conservative has to find complete accord with the CPC or he turns away in disgust.
Posted by: lrC | 2005-01-19 2:38:45 PM
JR and IrC, I am open to compromise on many issues, actually. I'm pro-choice, but feel that restrictions on late term abortions are acceptable. I feel that 'civil unions' instead of 'marriage' are acceptable. If the SSM matter is put to a Canada-wide referendum and my side loses, I could probably live with it (especially since I'm straight).
But the second the Conservatives start to sound like Bishop Fred Henry, I'm gone. I can only take so much.
Come next election, I suspect that I will probably hold my nose and vote Conservative again. They have managed to earn brownie points if for no other reason that I don't think any members of their current leadership have stolen from me yet.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 2:52:15 PM
Sean,
But those bigoted Liberals and Ndippers are denying you the right to have two wives; they're denying a woman who wants two husbands that right. How can you vote for such bigots?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 3:00:03 PM
"How can you vote for such bigots?"
Because occasionally it's nice to have a bit of variety in one's bigots, I suppose. Being Canadian, I have consigned myself to forever being governed by the incompetent and corrupt. It seems that all I have to look forward to these days is the occasional change of scenery.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 3:10:50 PM
Sean - in your support of poligamy, how might your "unbigoted" opinion change if - after a divorce, your wife chose to enter such a union - equal under the law - andthen petition for custody of your children, on the basis of "having a more stable home with support of full time parenting"..
(At the colony, of course.)
I often wonder how many SSM supporters among married women would feel the same watching her young sons leave the courtroom with her ex and his new "spouse".
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 3:14:46 PM
"Sean - in your support of poligamy, how might your "unbigoted" opinion change if - after a divorce, your wife chose to enter such a union - equal under the law - andthen petition for custody of your children, on the basis of "having a more stable home with support of full time parenting".."
Absolutely horrible. But what's to say that she wouldn't be presenting a more stable home life for the kid?
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 3:23:27 PM
The idea that the state should have the power to license a relationship between two people is absurd. They don't license you to have sex or raise children do they?
The federal government should get out of the marriage business. Let the provinces meddle in private relationships and build socially engineered utopias at their own peril. A province which is deemed by the public to be too bigoted will suffer just as much as a province which is judged to be a modern day Gomorrah.
"If Harper is wise, he'll present himself to voters as the embodiment of middle class values--family, hard work, rewarding effort, savings,small government, etc. He'll roll up same-sex marriage into that package, and affirm the importance of traditional marriage and the family. He should refuse to play on the Liberal turf of defining it as an issue of human rights."
Well put Norman!
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-01-19 9:38:26 PM
This thread is missing the point.
There is a suspicion that there are many voters for whom voting Liberal is congenital. They have never considered voting for anybody else. What's more, once "everyone" in the community votes Liberal, the subject ceases to be open for discussion. Eventually, Canada becomes a patchwork of Liberal ghettos.
The irony is that many of these communities have no business being Liberal on the basis of issues. If they considered and debated the party positions they would quickly switch to Conservative. They will never change, however, because they will never enter the debate.
Same sex marriage is an issue that is big enough to shock some communities into re-considering their options.
Greg makes a good case that the short-term opportunities are small but he is missing the big picture. The issue is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for political re-alignment.
Posted by: Pete E | 2005-01-20 1:02:06 AM
"The irony is that many of these communities have no business being Liberal on the basis of issues."
Like the Catholic community? The community that produced Paul Martin and Jean Chretien?
*cough*
In my experience there's a big difference between what most religious folks say and what they do. Don't get your hopes up too much.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-20 7:17:59 AM
As a Gay person it's all very touching to see straight Conservatives go up to bat for "my rights". There,s just one little probleme, though: I'm NOT in favour of gay marriage because in the LONG RUN it'll be harmful to all of society.
Over the years I've become very skeptical of willy-nilly do-gooders running about BREATHLESS with news of the latest plans for my "lib-er-a-tion".
So....like... cut it out! I've got rainbows comming out my ARSE, for heavan's sakes!!
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-01-20 8:06:02 AM
"As a Gay person it's all very touching to see straight Conservatives go up to bat for "my rights". There,s just one little probleme, though: I'm NOT in favour of gay marriage"
SSSSHHHH SSSSHHHH SSSSHHHH SSSSHHHHH John! You're dangerously close to revealing that gays are not a monolithic, group-thinking collective and that's something Canadian "right thinkers" could NEVER allow.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-20 8:57:13 AM
Sean,
I make no doubt that in general, conservatives - which should include in the CPC tent in Canada the libertarians and classical liberals who don't care to belong to a smaller party which is truer to their philosophies - will continue to place fewer restrictions overall on personal liberties than the welfare socialists who give rights and privileges with one hand but take away with the other. I doubt those you regard as social conservatives will be able to reverse the tide of freedom of sexuality in Canada. What is important is to focus on economic liberty and the proper scope of government in our lives.
If memory serves, it was Reagan who said something to the effect that government big enough to give you what you want is also big enough to take it away.
Posted by: lrC | 2005-01-20 2:34:57 PM
According to exit polls (sorry didn't save the original source), about 25% of gays voted for the samesex marriage "bans" during the last US election.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-20 2:41:45 PM
Shucks, Goldarn Kate: I thought you were at least up on US news
Report Acknowledges Inaccuracies in 2004 Exit Polls
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 20, 2005; Page A06
Interviewing for the 2004 exit polls was the most inaccurate of any in the past five presidential elections as procedural problems compounded by the refusal of large numbers of Republican voters to be surveyed led to inflated estimates of support for John F. Kerry, according to a report released yesterday by the research firms responsible for the flawed surveys.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-20 3:40:53 PM
Not those exit polls, Norm.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-20 3:47:55 PM
By the way - that report is already being shredded on the blogosphere. You might check it out.
http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2674
But of course, the Washington Post would have looked at it critically as well, too? Just to make sure it wasn't a whitewash?
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-20 3:59:31 PM
People still pay attention to polls? That's just...silly.
http://tinyurl.com/4c3eo
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-20 4:09:25 PM
So, first you say it was not "those" exit polls. Now the report on "those" exit polls--the ones all media used, by the way--is being trashed on the blogosphere. Which is it?
The guy who wrote the Post article, Richard Morin, is one of the top journalists in the field.
Kate, let's face it--you don't know sweet bugger all about polling. I'll bet you wouldn't even know how to draw a sample of jelly beans out of a jar.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-20 4:29:02 PM
Argument from Authority:
"The guy who wrote the Post article, Richard Morin, is one of the top journalists in the field."
Ad Hominem:
"I'll bet you wouldn't even know how to draw a sample of jelly beans out of a jar."
You don't lose arguments gracefully, do you, Norm?
Posted by: mgl | 2005-01-20 4:38:08 PM
Norm - my remark was poorly worded, I'll admit. I meant - that isn't what the "internal report" looked at. It looked at the discrepencies between "Kerry" vs "Bush" respondants and attempted to explain away a 3 pt "lead" for Kerry in early (leaked) reports.
Now, I have some advice for you.
If you are not going to read blogs, then by all means, that's your perogative. But you should think long and hard about this long standing overt hostility towards those who do - for your so-called "fact checking" skills as a professional journalist are looking pretty abysmal at this point.
In other words, a whole lot of us have moved beyond being embarrassed for you, to realizing that the problem of arrogance - as well as suspected lack of intelligence - is more widespread than alleged.
In other words, only an idiot would be ranting on this long about something he acknolwedges he has no experience with.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-20 4:39:48 PM
In fact, this statement is worth a fisking.
"So, first you say it was not "those" exit polls."
Clarified in the previous comment, but it should have been self-evident.
" Now the report on "those" exit polls--the ones all media used, by the way --is being trashed on the blogosphere."
The word "trashed" was not used. Had you actually visited the link you'll discover it was being critiqued by a poll-ing specialist blog.
(See previous questioning of your "fact checking".)
"Which is it?""
It did not occur to you that the two are independant, and thus "either/or" is not applicable.
"The guy who wrote the Post article, Richard Morin, is one of the top journalists in the field."
Interesting, but irrelevant.
"Kate, let's face it--you don't know sweet bugger all about polling. I'll bet you wouldn't even know how to draw a sample of jelly beans out of a jar."
Irrelevant. I did not claim any knowledge. I did not provide any analysis.
****
And that, Norm, is why the credibility of your profession is sinking in the opinion of the public, year, after year. You do not seem on the surface like a stupid man. Yet, on so many levels, with so many poorly considered comments like these, it may be that you've been coasting so long in a discipline that demands so little, that you've become lazy.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-20 5:07:45 PM
"The guy who wrote the Post article, Richard Morin, is one of the top journalists in the field."
People used to say that about Dan Rather. And Stevie Cameron. Elizabeth Nickson used to be widely respected as well. It seems that most top journalists are one 'fact checking' away from their new career as a Wal-mart greeter (the kind folks at the Standard being the exception, of course).
"I'll bet you wouldn't even know how to draw a sample of jelly beans out of a jar."
At least she wouldn't need help opening it.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-20 6:15:25 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.